4 ms·

I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthie

I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing? Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions? Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?

QAPereo 9y ago
If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?
- notyourwork 9y ago
  Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true. If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though? I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her. I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. No one said that it was, and it isn’t illegal to be a parasite. As to the rest, life is a competition.
justicezyx 9y ago
It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute. Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical. I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. That's the problem.
- oreo81 9y ago
  I see it as the exact opposite.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    > I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. You mean the richer people are, the ratio of their contribution to taking grows? That does not seem possible, because that will not make the person rich in the first place.
    - oreo81 9y ago
      They're rich in the first place because they've contributed more to society than other people.
      - justicezyx 9y ago
        Sure, I have no doubt that they contribute more than others. But the problem is the ratio of their taking far outpace the contribution.
        oreo81 9y ago
        That's your opinion, what makes you the judge of other peoples social contributions?
MisterBastahrd 9y ago
No, you aren't really contributing. That business existed without your ownership stake. You inherited it.

QAPereo 9y ago

If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks? Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?

notyourwork 9y ago
Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true. If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though? I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her. I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. No one said that it was, and it isn’t illegal to be a parasite. As to the rest, life is a competition.

justicezyx 9y ago

It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute. Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical. I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. That's the problem.

oreo81 9y ago
I see it as the exact opposite.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  > I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. You mean the richer people are, the ratio of their contribution to taking grows? That does not seem possible, because that will not make the person rich in the first place.
  - oreo81 9y ago
    They're rich in the first place because they've contributed more to society than other people.
    - justicezyx 9y ago
      Sure, I have no doubt that they contribute more than others. But the problem is the ratio of their taking far outpace the contribution.
      - oreo81 9y ago
        That's your opinion, what makes you the judge of other peoples social contributions?

MisterBastahrd 9y ago

No, you aren't really contributing. That business existed without your ownership stake. You inherited it.